Tag Archives: Democrat

The Two Best Laughs of the Day

And both are right here:

This has to be the best URL ever!

www.financialstability.gov

LOL.  Serious.  LOL.

I mean, really.  If someone sent that to me in email, I would think it was a hoax.  But the URL is only the second best laugh of the day.  The top laugh of the day is the page display when you actually go looking for financialstability.gov:

financialstability

What 400 Bucks Is Gonna Do

Recently I was part of a small conversation regarding a portion of the tax cuts in the new Stimulus Package.  The subject that got us all going was, well, the headline you see at the top of this very post; what 400 bucks is gonna do….  Now, to be clear, I think that what we were talking about was the portion of the tax cuts that President Obama refers to as tax cuts to 95% of working men and women; $500 for an individual, a $1000 for a family.  At least that’s what I think the reference is, though, to be fair, I’m not sure.  For example, I don’t know where 400 came from, as I mentioned, I though the Obama tax cut was $500…anyway, I digress.  The point is, we had a good conversation.

Here is my case.

The Federal government levies taxes on individuals in the form of individual income tax.  As far as I know, there are no other taxes on individuals that the Feds have claim to.  Sales tax is a state tax, state income tax is, well, levied by the state.  Vehicle, property, city and county taxes…all non-Federal.  FICA and Medicare, not taxes.  These are with holdings that fund programs or specific funds.  They can not be used for other purposes, and if those programs or funds went away, so too, would the withholding.  FICA , after all, is is really just shorthand for Federal Insurance Contribution Act.  In this specific case, Social Security is really just an insurance program.  Anyway, point is–not a tax.

That would mean, for the Federal government to say that it is giving a tax cut to 95% of working Americans, he would have to reduce the rate of the tax.  For example, if an individual is being taxed at 28%, to realize a tax cut, she would have to see her rate go down, say..to 27% or 20%. That’s a tax cut.  What is not a tax cut is when an individual who currently pays no amount of money to the Federal government gets a check from Uncle Sam.  It is something.  And if it’s a grand, it’s not insignificant.  But what it’s not, is a tax cut.

And this is why it’s important.  It’s important because it has clear and critical ramifications, when dealing with a struggling economy.  It is NOT important because of the partisan bickering going on.  We have all heard the arguments going back to the election from the Democrats that Obama was offering a tax cut and The Republicans claiming it was just income redistribution.  That’s not why it’s important.  Where it really really matters is in how the recipients SEE, or perceive, the additional money.

You see, when I am chugging along in my normal economic way, I do just that–chug along.  I buy near the same kinds of groceries at near the same amounts.  I drive about the same kind of car and get it washed at about the as often as I always do.  I go out about the same number of nights and have about the same number of beers.  But now, let’s say that something changes.  Let’s say that I get a check back from my insurance company; my rates went down and they have overcharged me for two consecutive 6-month periods.  I get $500.  How do I spend that money?  It has been shown that the typical person spends it in one of two ways – They pay down debt OR they go on a 1 time splurge shopping spree.  So, VISA gets it or Best Buy gets it.  And then whamo, right back to the normal way of spending money.  Point is, there is no sustainable economic jolt in either paying off VISA or buying that flat screen TV.

Now, let’s say that instead of a windfall [the insurance overcharge check], I get a raise.  This presents me with a new way of looking at the money coming into me.  I view this a sustainable income, an item that I can budget for and count on.  I know it’s going to be there next paycheck and the paycheck after it.  This affects my spending in a much different way.  It sustains it.  I am more willing to up what I buy and/or how often I buy it.  I may not ration myself to a 6-pak.  Perhaps I can up how often I get a new car, or new jeans or new whatever.  Further, because it is not presented to me in a lump sum significant amount, the chances that I sink it into debt reduction is less; I actually spend it.  In this case, the economy is better off.

Now, for the whammy.  If, instead of giving me, a worker bee who concerns himself with just me and mine, a $500 bump, what if 20 people like me DIDN’T get the money but it went to a small business owner who was just thhhhiiiiiiisss close to obtaining the money to hire one more guy.  Or buy that new processor in his assembly line.  What if that 10k went to someone who GREW the money, who took it and turned it into 15k, or 20k AND gave someone a job because of it?

It is because of these reasons that fiscal conservatives don’t like the tax cut language in the stimulus package.  Not because Obama thought of it, or because Pelosi pushed it.  Or because no republican voted for it.  It’s because it’s moving money around in a way that does not grow said money, and it denies the recipient the critical perception that it’s sustained.  And further more, if you want to grow the economy, it’s not putting it into the hands of people who grow money.

The Loyal Minority

Many Republicans, conservatives especially, have railed against the stimulus package proposed by either The Chairman or the Democrat party.  The fact is that it contains so much extra spending that we are left unsure what is really meant to be stimulus and what is meant to be long held Democratic pet projects.  Say nothing of the fact that it likely won’t work.

It is a long standing pet peeve of mine for people to continually point out the obvious, the wrong, the bad ideas without coming up with their own.  And so it is that the Republicans have, in fact, come forth with ideas of their own.

For a nice read see this article from Reason.

Disheartening Change of Ideals

So, I was talking to a friend yesterday regarding the new administration; Obama’s plans and goals.  Now, in the past, this friend of mine has been consistently further left than me, but only barely.  However, in several cases, namely that of the ability of the government to take money from us, he was slightly to the right.  Yesterday he shared with me that, yes, in fact, it is the “right thing to do” when we were discussing the transfer of money from those that have to those that simply have less.  When I prodded him further, he claimed “It’s the right thing to do.”

I couldn’t talk.

I shook my head, looked down for a second and then lifted my eyes back up to meet his, hoping, really really hoping that I would see the beginnings of a smile.  See the familiar wrinkle in the eyes that would signal the beginning of the joke.

Nothing.  He looked at me dead in the eye.  And just blinked.

As a friend, of course, I couldn’t lambaste him, but I did gently bring up old discussions, debates that we shared over coffee, bourbon and beer.  He admitted that, in fact, he does remember saying and feeling those things and yes, doesn’t deny, that he has now changed his mind.

I got the feeling as a walked away, that he may be on the fence.  That somehow,even he himself knew that he wasn’t sure if he was saying these things because they were the result of bedrock principles well thought out or, if, perhaps, it’s because he somehow wanted to feel that way.  That somehow, society has lost it’s way and we have forgotten those less fortunate.  And in so doing, we have perhaps ceded our rights, certain rights, to the government in regard to the tending of the poor.

Of course, before I left I recounted how this country’s poor are not really so poor, as a whole.  That in fact, not only are the bottom 25% much much better off than even 30 years ago, they are living in conditions that would be considered very well off with respect to the rest of the world.  I insisted that I find it hard to classify someone as poor when they had a satellite TV and PlayStation, but couldn’t afford health care for their kids.

I almost saw a tear as he nodded in agreement, but then shrugged it off, as if to say “I can’t explain it, but I am at peace with my newfound place.”

At least for now.

So the question is this.  How did the paradigm get changed?  How did we lose what was once a rock solid foundation of right and wrong [or at least right and not right]?  And then, how do we communicate that in such a way so as to win the hearts and minds of those lost converts, and, perhaps, even win back some from the other side to boot?